Bus 372 week 2 discussion 1&2

Learning Objectives

After completing this chapter, you should be able to:• Explain how legal processes such as yellow dog contracts, injunc tions, and antitrust

legislation restrained labor.

• Examine the legislation that was passed prior to World War II th at helped unify and

protect workers, including the Norris­LaGuardia Act, the Nat ional Industrial Recovery

Act, and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.

• Summarize the major events that occurred after World War II t hat affected organized

labor, such as the Taft­Hartley Act, the merger of the Americ an Federation of Labor and

the Congress of Industrial Unions, and President John F. Kennedy’ s administration.

3

The Rise of Legal Protection

Courtesy Everett Collection • Describe the position of labor at the end of the 20th century. Introduction

At the end of the 19th century, intense animosities continued between workers and management.

Events like the violent Great Railway Strike of 1877 , the Haymarket Square Riot, and the Homestead

Strike exemplify these tensions.

With the turn of the 20th century, these animosities d id not disappear; on the contrary, they heightened,

but there was eventual progress. The next sections discus s the legal processes that were used to keep

labor in check, followed by a slow evolution toward the other e nd of the spectrum: recognition that labor

should have a voice in the workplace. 3.1 Impeding Union Activity

There were three key ways in which the law was used to shut down union activity between the 1870s

and 1930s. These methods included yellow dog contracts, injunctions, and antitrust legislation. Each

method was sanctioned by the courts and upheld as a legal way to stop workers from organizing.

Yellow Dog Contracts

Starting around 1870, employers began using what are referred to as yellow dog contracts . These

contracts stated that as a condition of being hired, t he employee agreed not to participate in a union

while in the employ of the owner. Refusing to sign suc h a contract resulted in not getting the job, so

workers complied with these terms. After the contract was signed, if a union attempted to get workers to

join, the owner could sue the union for attempting t o breach the contract between the employee and

employer, a wrong known as interference with a contractual re lationship.

Although these contracts were initially upheld as leg al and constitutional, they were finally laid to rest

when Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) in 1933, which stated that

employees have the right to organize and bargain col lectively, free from interference, thus making it

illegal to use yellow dog contracts. Until that time, however, the yellow dog contract was a highly

effective way to halt union activity.

Injunctions

In addition to yellow dog contracts, courts during th is era also employed another weapon to effectively

quash union activity—that of the injunction. An injun ction is an order issued by a court that commands

the enjoined party either to do a specific act or to refrain from doing a specific act. For example, an

injunction might order a union to cease its strike (co mmanded to refrain from doing a specific act) and

return to work (commanded to do a specific act). One of the earliest and most successful uses of the

injunction can be found in the Great Pullman Strike that occurred in 1894.

The Great Pullman Strike

At this time, train travel in the United States was di rty, noisy, and cramped. George Pullman, a

carpenter and engineer, was traveling overnight on a train, uncomfortable as he sat up for the entire

night. He was struck by the fact that train travel co uld be vastly improved with luxurious

accommodations. This revelation led him to create wha t he called Pullman sleeping cars, railroad cars

with comfortable chairs and cabins with beds for overn ight sleeping. He then leased these specialized

Pullman cars to various train companies, who attached them to their line of cars. Patrons could travel in

luxury and sleep overnight in a bed while the train continued i ts journey.

The resulting Pullman Palace Car Company was successful and profitable; so much so that in the

1880s Pullman founded a town outside of Chicago named Pull man, Illinois. There he built his factory and

provided company housing for his workers and their fa milies, as well as churches, schools, and stores.

The town still exists today and can be viewed in pictu res at

http://www.pullmanil.org/town.htm

(http://www.pullmanil.org/town.htm) . Workers paid rent to Pullman and bought their groceries from his

stores so that, in effect, much of the money they earn ed was paid back to Pullman; this arrangement

became known as a company town. Pullman Palace Car workers were members of the American Railway Union (ARU). The ARU

represented most railroad workers and was founded in 1 893 under the leadership of Eugene Debs. It

had been previously successful in a strike against the G reat Northern Railway, shutting it down for 18

days. In 1894 George Pullman lowered his workers’ wages. The ARU called a strike and asked every train

worker in the nation to join in. Eventually, the suc cessful strike shut down the entire railway system in

the Northeast, causing a major disruption in interstate commerc e, rail travel, and the economy. Strikes of

this significance made a long­lasting impression on the American people. It is one thing for workers to

shut down a plant, but when commerce comes to a halt, people’s daily lives are disrupted—rather than

feeling allegiance to the workers and their cause, th e public’s reaction is one of anger (Illinois Labor

History Society, 2010).

In the case of the Pullman strike, the managers of the railroad had a novel idea: They attached the

Pullman cars to the back of the mail trains. When the strikers delayed the trains, they delayed the mail,

which then became a federal issue. As a result, Presiden t Grover Cleveland had jurisdiction to act under

the commerce clause. He called in federal troops, and a huge melee ensued. An injunction was issued to

stop the strike, and Debs was arrested and held in conte mpt for failing to abide by the injunction when

he refused to end the strike. The resulting 1895 case, In re Debs (In the Matter of Debs) was significant

because the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of an injunctio n to stop a labor strike.

Samuel Gompers

An injunction was next used effectively against Americ an Federation of Labor (AFL) president Samuel

Gompers in the 1909 case Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Company (Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range

Company , 1911). The AFL published a monthly magazine called the American Federalist, which contained

a “We Don’t Patronize” (which is another way of sayin g boycott ) list of companies that the union

designated as unfair to labor. Buck’s Stove & Range ha d refused to give its workers a 9­hour day. As a

result, the company appeared on the magazine’s list. When readers saw that the company was unfair to

labor, word spread and sales at Buck’s Stove & Range dr opped. The company saw its profits fall and

sought an injunction against Gompers, his fellow officers, and t he AFL.

The court agreed, issuing an injunction that prohibit ed Gompers and the AFL from publishing the list.

Gompers had other ideas, however. He refused to obey t he order and continued to publish the list,

arguing that his First Amendment free speech rights wer e impeded by the issuance of the injunction and

that free speech was more important than Buck’s Stove & Rang e’s appearance on the list and subsequent

loss of business. The court did not agree, holding that the injunction did not prohibit free speech; rather,

it prohibited the boycott. As a result, Gompers was sen tenced to jail for contempt of court for refusing to

honor the injunction. However, he was released on bai l; the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme

Court, where it was eventually struck down, so Gompers never served any jail time (Gompers v. Buck’s

Stove & Range Company , 1911).

These cases are representative of the many in which inj unctions were used to shut down workers who

called for either a strike or a boycott. Subsequent l egislation eventually prohibited this particular use of

an injunction in a labor dispute, but it would be some years until that occurred.

Antitrust Legislation

The third weapon in the antiunion arsenal was the application of antitrust legislation to union activity.

Antitrust laws are concerned with stopping monopolies, or combinations, so that consumers can buy goods at a price based on the marketplace. Following the Civil War, numerous business entities

combined to form powerful trusts or monopolies. One such business was the Standard Oil Company,

founded by John D. Rockefeller. The creation of such entities stifled competition by acquiring

competitors until none were left. This allowed the bu siness to set a price for its goods without any other

business remaining to compete and offer a lower price. Under increasing pressure from the general

public to end such combinations, in 1890 Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Another typical Sherman Antitrust Act case would be o ne in which two competing businesses conspired

together to diminish competition. Say, for example, that Tire Company A and Tire Company B had a

meeting of their top management in which they decid ed not to compete against one another, but instead

agreed to set their prices at the same amount. As a co nsumer, you would see the effect of such price

fixing if you shopped around for tires. Instead of var ying prices, you would find that the cost of a tire

from Company A is exactly the same as a tire from Company B.

Therefore, competition between the two businesses is not encouraging them to lower prices. Instead, by

working together, the tire companies have set the pri ce of products, so there is no competition. When

there is no competition, product price does not fluct uate, but instead is set by the sellers. Standard Oil

was one of the first industries to feel the effects of t he Sherman Antitrust Act in the 1911 case Standard

Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States , in which the court divided the company into smalle r entities that

could then compete against one another.

It may seem strange to think that the same law used to break up combinations and monopolies would

apply to unions, but the courts soon applied the act u nder the theory that unions behaved like

monopolies when they set prices for their wages. The f irst application of this theory was in the 1908

Danbury Hatters case, Loewe v. Lawlor (1908/1915). The Danbury Hatters factory in Connecti cut

manufactured hats and sold them to buyers within and o utside the state, thus making the business

engaged in interstate commerce and subject to federal law. Th e United Hatters of North America, a union

that consisted of 9,000 members and was affiliated wit h the AFL, had organized most of the hat factories

in the country but was not successful at the Danbury Ha tters plant, despite the fact that the plant

featured dismal working conditions and treated its wor kers poorly (American Federation of Labor,

1914).

The AFL, the United Hatters, and the workers consider ed how to respond to the conditions at the plant.

If they went on strike, they reasoned, the company wo uld just replace them with new workers, which

was not prohibited at the time. They decided instead to declare a nationwide boycott. They publicized

that Danbury Hatters treated its employees unfairly an d asked the general public not to buy its product.

(Since union­made hats had a union label attached to them, the American public would be able to

discern if the hats were union made or not and could respect the bo ycott.)

The boycott ensued, and it was a success. Profits at Danb ury Hatters dropped significantly. Searching for

a way to recover their losses, the owners of the facto ry decided to sue the union and its members for

financial damages incurred during the boycott. The l awsuit characterized the boycott as a combination

in restraint of trade , which was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Since the union asked consumers throughout the United States not to buy the hats, the union engaged in

what is deemed a secondary boycott . In a secondary boycott, neutral parties such as consum ers are

asked to apply pressure to the employer, in this case Da nbury Hatters, to force the employer to comply

with the union’s wishes. The concerted, or united, act ivity between the union and consumers was used to determine that the union was “united in a combination” and that it was “restraining and destroying

interstate trade and commerce,” thereby violating the act (D anbury Hatters Case, 1908).

Secondary boycotts can be effective tools for unions t o employ against owners. They are still used today

in limited circumstances. Figure 3.1 depicts how a secondary boy cott works.

Figure 3.1: Diagram of a secondary boycott

A secondary boycott relies on neutral parties to apply pressure to the employer,

forcing the employer to comply with union wishes.

Not only was the union held in violation of the act, but the union and its members were also held

personally liable for the loss of profits sustained and w ere assessed damages in the amount of $252,000.

Personal liability means that once the assets of the uni on were depleted, the workers themselves would

have to pay back the money. In addition, the Sherma n Antitrust Act awards treble damages, so the

amount owed was then tripled. These were enormous sums a t the time, and workers made very little

money. The court’s holding must have been devastating to the employees and their families and

undoubtedly made them, and other workers throughout the country, think twice about ever conducting

an open and visible campaign again.

After this decision, there was a public outcry about what was p erceived to be a misapplication of the law.

In response, Congress amended the Sherman Antitrust Act with the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, a

federal statute that added language specifically excl uding labor unions from being deemed a

combination or conspiracy:

The labor of a human being is not a commodity or art icle of commerce. . . . Nor shall such

organizations, or the members thereof, be held or con strued to be illegal combinations or

conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws. (C layton Act, 1914)

Unions and labor leaders alike heralded the Clayton A ct. Gompers declared it the “industrial Magna

Carta upon which the working people will rear their construction of industrial freedom” (as cited in Craver, 1995, p. 21). However, the rejoicing was short lived, and labor was taken aback when a

subsequent court decision in 1921, Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering , held that the Clayton Act did

not provide statutory protection to secondary boycotts. T he court not only outlawed labor’s ability to

legally engage in secondary boycotts, it also gave emp loyers the right to sue any union that did so.

Declaring secondary boycotts illegal while also giving employers a right to sue proved to be effective in

halting these types of boycotts. 3.2 Turning the Tide Toward Labor

With the use of injunctions and antitrust laws to prohibit union activity as well as the public’s general

disdain resulting from the many strikes, it must have se emed like a discouraging time for labor. After all,

they had seen their leader, Samuel Gompers, jailed fo r contempt of court and watched as the courts

imposed personal fines on Danbury Hatters employees. Hist ory is never without its twists and turns,

however, and just as the labor movement seemed at its l owest ebb, the early 20th century heralded the

beginning of labor’s greatest strides toward unification and le gal protection.

The Railway Labor Act of 1926

Between 1917 and 1920, during which time the United States was engaged in World War I, there was

widespread fear that labor unrest could lead to a shut down of the nation’s railroads. Mindful that if the

railroads shut down, the economy would suffer, the gov ernment nationalized the railroads under the

Federal Possession and Control Act in 1916. By taking over the railroads, the governme nt could

ensure that no strikes would take place (because milita ry personnel would be available to take over the

job of any striking workers). The government argued t hat national security was at risk, the quality of the

railroads had been degrading, and the president and C ongress, under their war powers, had to do

something to ensure the railroads’ viability. As a resul t, the federal government took the railroads out of

the hands of their owners until 1920, after the war h ad ended and the threat to national security had

diminished.

That same year, Congress passed the Transportation Act of 1920, which created a Railroad Labor

Board to hear disputes between railroad owners and wor kers, a forerunner to today’s arbitration

process. Although creating such a board represented tre mendous progress, parts of the act were so

criticized that the president sought revisions. This tim e, however, the process was much different. In an

extraordinary recognition of labor, President Calvin Coolidge called for the railroads and unions to work

together on a bill that would ensure peace in the ra ilroad industry, which culminated in the Railway

Labor Act of 1926 (Barrett & Barrett, 2004). Today the Railway Labor Act governs labor relations in

both the airline and railway industries.

The significance of including labor in these meetings cannot be overstated. This was the first time that

labor and management sat down at the behest of the go vernment and worked out an agreement

together. The Railway Labor Act is still in effect to day and guarantees “effective and efficient remedies

for the resolution of railroad–employee disputes arising out of the interpretation of collective­

bargaining agreements” (Railway Labor Act, 2012). Th e Adjustment Board (which replaced the

Railroad Labor Board) “was created as a tribunal consi sting of workers and management to secure the

prompt, orderly, and final settlement of grievances t hat arise daily between employees and carriers

regarding rates of pay, rules and working conditions” ( Union Pacific Company v. Sheehan, 1978).

In short, the federal government recognized the impo rtance of unions enough to include representatives

in both the formulation and establishment of this agency, signaling a newfound and profound respect for

unions and their concerns.

Norris­LaGuardia Act of 1932

Just a few years later, the United States underwent a major economic depression, beginning with the

stock market crash in 1929. Much pressure was on Preside nt Herbert Hoover’s administration to turn the economy around. Hoover recognized that labor was an essential ingredient to revitalization and that

the laws would have to change for that to occur. Und er his auspices, new legislation that bolstered

workers’ rights was passed in 1932, named the Norris­LaGuardia Act.

Few laws have served to change the face of labor rel ations as much as this act, in part because it granted

explicit rights that were previously denied. For exam ple, the law stated that the federal courts could no

longer issue injunctions to prevent nonviolent strikes o r keep workers from becoming members of labor

organizations and peaceably assembling. Furthermore, the act outlawed yellow dog contracts and

allowed secondary boycotts as long as they were not violent.

Norris­LaGuardia did not ban injunctions altogether, but it did stop the practice of issuing injunctions

without any notice to the union. Without notice, of course, the union could not know to appear in court

or that a court was contemplating the issuance of an i njunction, and therefore could not contest its

issuance. With the new requirement mandating notice, however, the union could now testify about the

nonviolent nature of its strike or that its strike woul d not cause property damage. Such testimony could

then result in the court refusing to issue the injunction and allo wing the strike to take place.

In one of the first cases to test the new law, New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co . (1938), a group

of African Americans formed an alliance, not a union , which picketed a grocery store that refused to

employ African American clerks. The protesters were no t employees of the store but were concerned

about its discriminatory employment practices. They c arried placards that read, “Do Your Part! Buy

Where You Can Work! No Negroes Employed Here!” Because the picketers were not workers or

employees of the store, the question of whether Norris­ LaGuardia protected them arose in court. In its

opinion, the court stated:

It was intended that peaceful and orderly disseminatio n of information by those defined as

persons interested in a labor dispute concerning “terms and conditions of employment” in an

industry or a plant or a place of business should be law ful; that, short of fraud, breach of the

peace, violence, or conduct otherwise unlawful, those having a direct or indirect interest in

such terms and conditions of employment should be at li berty to advertise and disseminate

facts and information with respect to terms and condi tions of employment, and peacefully to

persuade others to concur in their views respecting an employer’s practices. (New Negro

Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co ., 1938)

Note that the language clearly expands Norris­LaGuard ia to “persons interested in a labor dispute” and

does not thereby limit the application of the law to just employers or employees. In addition, the court

stated that injunctions may not be issued if the action s of the protesters are peaceful and orderly. Thus,

the right to protest and express views about the unfair treatment of labor was greatly expanded by this

case.

The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933

Just one year after Norris­LaGuardia, President Frankl in

D. Roosevelt took office in the midst of the continui ng

depression. Roosevelt’s administration is viewed as one

of the strongest pro­union presidencies in history

(Library of Congress, 2012). Courtesy Everett Collection

Franklin D. Roosevelt is typically viewed

as a pro­union president.

During his 12 years in office, Roosevelt supported and

stewarded numerous bills through Congress in support

of labor—none more short­lived than the National

Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (National Industrial

Recovery Act, 2012), in which he asked businesses and

workers to suspend the antitrust laws, fix prices, and

work together to create codes of fair competition to get

the economy moving. The grand experiment did not la st

long, however, because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional in Schechter Poultry (A.L.A.

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 1935) because it gave the president powers beyond the scope of

those granted to him by the U.S. Constitution.

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (the Wagner Act)

With the NIRA held unconstitutional, Roosevelt needed comprehensive legislation that spoke to the

rights of labor to organize and collectively bargain . It was not long before he replaced the defunct NIR A

with a new law, the National Labor Relations Act (NL RA) of 1935, sometimes referred to as the Wagner

Act after its author, New York senator Robert F. Wagner.

This law guarantees employees four historic and fundamental rights: first, the right to join a labor union;

second, the right to collectively bargain through represen tatives of their own choosing; third, the right to

go on strike; and fourth, the right to refrain from union activity. At the same time, the law prohibits

employers from refusing to bargain with unions, interf ering with or restraining the right to join or form

a union, attempting to dominate or influence a unio n, interfering with collective bargaining, and

discriminating against union members or union activity.

In short, the act gave labor many of the rights it ha d been so eagerly seeking but, in contrast, did not

expand the rights of managers. As a result, business was ea ger to see the law overturned and challenged

it in the landmark case NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation in 1937. Here the Supreme Court

upheld the constitutionality of the act. An excerpt follows:

N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

301 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 615 (1937)

Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

In a proceeding under the National Labor Relations A ct of 1935 the National Labor Relations

Board found that the respondent, Jones & Laughlin St eel Corporation, had violated the act by

engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerc e. The proceeding was instituted by the

Beaver Valley Lodge No. 200, affiliated with the Ama lgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin

Workers of America, a labor organization. The unfai r labor practices charged were that the

corporation was discriminating against members of the uni on with regard to hire and tenure of

employment, and was coercing and intimidating its emp loyees in order to interfere with their

self­organization. The discriminatory and coercive ac tion alleged was the discharge of certain

employees. . . .

The National Labor Relations Board, sustaining the cha rge, ordered the corporation to cease

and desist from such discrimination and coercion, to o ffer reinstatement to ten of the employees named, to make good their losses in pay, and to post for thirty days notices that the

corporation would not discharge or discriminate against me mbers, or those desiring to become

members, of the labor union. As the corporation faile d to comply, the Board petitioned the

Circuit Court of Appeals to enforce the order. The c ourt denied the petition holding that the

order lay beyond the range of federal power. We gra nted certiorari. We think it clear that the

National Labor Relations Act may be construed so as to operate within the sphere of

constitutional authority. The jurisdiction conferred upon the Board, and invoked in this

instance, is found in section 10(a), 29 U.S.C.A. s 160( a), which provides: “The Board is

empowered, as hereinafter provided, to prevent any p erson from engaging in any unfair labor

practice affecting commerce.”. . .

Section 7. Employees shall have the right to self­org anization, to form, join, or assist labor

organizations, to bargain collectively through repre sentatives of their own choosing, and to

engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col lective bargaining or other mutual aid or

protection.

Thus, in its present application, the statute goes no fu rther than to safeguard the right of

employees to self­organization and to select representa tives of their own choosing for

collective bargaining or other mutual protection wi thout restraint or coercion by their

employer.

That is a fundamental right. Employees have as clear a right to organize and select their

representatives for lawful purposes as the respondent h as to organize its business and select

its own officers and agents. Discrimination and coercio n to prevent the free exercise of the

right of employees to self­organization and representa tion is a proper subject for

condemnation by competent legislative authority. Lon g ago we stated the reason for labor

organizations. We said that they were organized out of the necessities of the situation; that a

single employee was helpless in dealing with an employe r; that he was dependent ordinarily

on his daily wage for the maintenance of himself and family; that, if the employer refused to

pay him the wages that he thought fair, he was nevert heless unable to leave the employ and

resist arbitrary and unfair treatment; that union was essential to give laborers opportunity to

deal on an equality with their employer. . . . Full y recognizing the legality of collective action on

the part of employees in order to safeguard their pr oper interests, we said that Congress was

not required to ignore this right but could safeguard it. Congress could seek to make

appropriate collective action of employees an instrum ent of peace rather than of strife. (NLRB

v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , 1937)

Why was NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation such an important case? At issue was the

constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act , with some commentators believing that the law

exceeded the scope of the president’s powers. The case se ttled once and for all the constitutionality of

the NLRA and the right of workers to collectively organize.

In addition to the sweeping guarantees promised to lab or, the National Labor Relations Act established

the National Labor Relations Board, which is the fede ral administrative agency that has oversight of

labor relations in the United States.

The National Labor Relations Board has two principal functions: (a) to determine and implement

through secret ballot elections the free democratic c hoice by employees as to whether or not they wish

to be represented by a union dealing with their empl oyers and, if so, by which union; and (b) to prevent and remedy violations of the NLRA, called unfair labor practices, by employers, unions, or both (NLRB,

2013). Unfair labor practices can occur against emplo yees, employers, unions, individuals, or a

combination of any of these entities.

As previously noted, although the National Labor Rela tions Act was another step forward for labor, it

was not popular with owners or management. The percep tion that the NLRA and the NLRB favored

labor and that management and owners were disregarded in the legislation became a pervasive

drumbeat that did not diminish until the act was amended by the Taft­Hartley Act in 1947.

Today the National Labor Relations Act is regarded as the most comprehensive and important

foundation of labor relations and labor law in the U nited States. Interpretations of the act take up

volumes of administrative and case law. Although we ca nnot address every aspect of the law, we will

nevertheless consider the most important foundational pieces o f the act in Chapter 4. 3.3 Post–World War II Developments in Labor Relations

Following World War II, union membership was at an all­time high; but the perception of unions by the

general public became mixed as more and more strikes t ook place. As a result of these strikes, Congress

felt compelled to pass legislation that limited union power, clamped down on the right to strike, and

imposed internal controls on financial dealings of un ions. Labor had some victories with the merger of

the AFL and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in 1955, making it the largest umbrella

organization in the country, but suffered setbacks as w ell. By the end of the century, private unions were

decreasing in size and power.

The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947: Taft­Hartley

The United States entered World War II in 1941 when Roosevelt was still president. He was mindful that

strikes by workers or lockouts by employers could shut d own vital industries while the war was in

progress. He therefore created the National War Labor Board to take over major industries for the

duration of the war (and thereby ensure that the job s could be staffed by military personnel, if

necessary) and freeze the wages of workers.

Roosevelt died in office in 1945 while the country w as still at war. He was succeeded by Harry S.

Truman. When the war came to an end, workers wanted the wage freezes lifted and felt it was unfair for

them to remain in place. Membership in labor unions w as at an all­time high, but so was labor unrest,

resulting in numerous strikes.

The frequency of these strikes led this period to be ch aracterized as one of the most tumultuous in labor

history. At the end of World War II, more than 14.5 million workers were union members, or 35% of the

overall population in the United States, the highest figure ever in the history of the country. Yet in 1946

alone there were more than 4,985 strikes. The frequency of strikes greatly affected the nation’s economy

and disrupted commerce. It also exposed the growing te nsion between unions and management and

placed labor in a negative light because the America n public blamed the workers for the disruptions

caused by the strikes (Ludwig, 2007).

This era was called the Great Strike Wave of 1946 . One colorful event during these strikes was

Truman’s address to Congress in which he asked not only f or the power to take over the striking

railroads but also the power to take every striker and put them into the army. In that speech, Truman

asked Congress to develop a long­term labor policy to “prevent the recurrence of such crises and . . .

reduce the stoppages of work in all industries for the future” (Word Has Just Been Received, n.d.). You

can listen to Truman’s speech here:

http://historymatters.gmu .edu/d/5137

(http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5137) . While Truman was delivering his speech, he received a note that

the railroad workers had capitulated and ended their strike. Even though that strike ended, the enormity

of 4,985 strikes in 1 year tarnished public perception of unions, resulting in a groundswell of support to

change the law.

It was in this context of great union unrest and publi c sentiment condemning the continual strikes and

shutdowns by labor that Congress passed the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known

as Taft­Hartley. The act was named for its two sponsors, Robert Taft, a Republican senator from Ohio,

and Fred Hartley, a Republican representative from N ew Jersey. Interestingly, Truman vetoed the act,

believing that it would infringe on workers’ free spe ech. Despite his opposition, Congress overcame his

veto and garnered enough support for passage. Taft­Hartley is considered tilted in favor of management and is therefore characterized as antiunion

because it restricts unions’ powers. It gives workers the right to refuse to participate in a union except

when becoming a union member is a condition of emplo yment. It imposes on unions the same duty to

bargain in good faith as management and prohibits uni ons from charging excessive dues. Supervisors

are excluded from bargaining units. It gives the presi dent the right to halt strikes if he or she can show

that doing so is in the national interest; and at the same time it outlaws numerous types of labor

activities, as follows:

1. Jurisdictional strikes

A jurisdictional strike is when a union refuses to work. These strikes occur to protest work

assignments. For example, suppose a business assigned the ele ctrical work on its new office

building to a company that had no union. Union A goes on st rike in protest that its own members

were not given the job.

2. Wildcat strikes

Wildcat strikes occur when workers go on strike without their uni on’s permission.

3. Solidarity or political strikes

Solidarity or political strikes do not occur because of wages or issues of employment, but to

protest a political event in the country.

4. Secondary boycotts

As previously explained, a secondary boycott occurs whe n workers of one company exert

pressure on another company with whom they deal and r efuse to perform any work that may

impact that other company, such as delivering goods.

5. Closed shops

Closed shops are workplaces that make joining a union a conditio n of employment. Taft­Hartley

declared the closed shop illegal. Another type of shop is a union shop. In a union shop, the

employee may be hired without being a union member but must join the union within a certain

amount of time after he or she is hired.

A union shop is legal under Taft­Hartley only if the union and the employer make it part of the

collective bargaining agreement (CBA). There are, h owever, right­to­work states. These states

make a union shop illegal. Therefore, union shops are legal under Taft­Hartley only if the union

and the employer agree on it as part of the CBA and only if not outlawed by state law. Table 3.1

illustrates the application of Taft­Hartley and right­to­work laws to closed and union shops.

6. Monetary donations

It is illegal for unions to donate money to federal political ca mpaigns.

Table 3.1: Application of Taft­Hartley and state laws to clo sed and union shops

Definition Application of Taft­Hartley Application of sta te law Definition Application of Taft­Hartley Application of state law

Closed

shopEmployee must join the

union before he or she

can be hired. Illegal under Taft­Hartley Illegal in all states

Union

shop Employee must join the

union after he or she is

hired. Legal under Taft­Hartley if the

employer and the union make

it a part of the CBA 24 states prohibit union

membership or payment of

dues as a condition

of employment

Taft­Hartley survives to this day in the current Nati onal Labor Relations Act. One important change Taft­

Hartley made was giving the NLRB the power to determ ine the direction of U.S. labor policy by making

decisions in court­like hearings. These hearings, which are described in greater detail in Chapter 5, are

presided over at the NLRB by a board of five people appointed by the president, often referred to as the

board.

An agency shop hires both union and nonunion members. However, empl oyees who are not members

of the union must still contribute to the union dues t o cover the costs of collective bargaining. In a public

or governmental union, this payment covers the costs of collective bargaining and is often referred to as

a fair share fee.

One problem with allowing workers to opt out of payi ng union dues is that by law, a union has the duty

to represent everyone. Yet if it has such a duty but no t all of the workers pay for this representation,

then some workers receive the benefit of union representation f ree of charge (Becker, 2014).

Landrum­Griffin Act of 1959

The successor to Truman was President Dwight D. Eisenhowe r. During his second term, in the late

1950s, it came to light that there was much corruptio n occurring in labor organizations. The American

people were made aware of this widespread corruption thanks in part to a new invention named

television, which carried daily congressional hearings that featured the testimony of colorful persons

such as Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa. Hoffa talked a nd acted like a gangster during the hearings,

and his responses were considered crude and disrespectful by many of those watching, especially

toward Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. To watch testimony from these congressional hearings

click

here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=tsWVzTK0__s&list=PLhFd1Avy_vKGa0vf6jtRUx8AHYLKd0H ­b&index=2) . For an excellent biography of

Hoffa, click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6bcro9f5ak) .

A general chorus of outrage followed the hearings, an d Congress took action with passage of the

Landrum­Griffin Act in 1959, which amended the Labor Management Relati ons Act of 1947 (Taft­

Hartley). Landrum­Griffin had two main purposes: (a) to make the internal governance of labor unions

more democratic, and (b) to protect the “rights and interests of employees and the public generally as

they related to the activities of labor organization s, employers, labor relations consultants, and their

officers and representatives” (Labor Management Reporting an d Disclosure Act, 1959).

The end result of the legislation was that labor organizations b ecame accountable for their activities. The

law now required them to disclose their financial tra nsactions, protect union funds and assets, and have

standards for the election of officers. Unions must file information reports, constitutions, and bylaws as © Bettmann/Corbis

The AFL­CIO was formed in 1955 and

continues to operate today. Here New

York governor W. Averell Harriman

speaks to members of the AFL­CIO the

year the group was founded.

well as annual financial reports with the Office of Labor­Management Standards. These documents are

all a matter of public record and are available at

http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/rrlo/lmrda.htm

(http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/rrlo/lmrda .htm) .

Merger of the AFL and CIO, 1955

In 1955 the AFL and the CIO merged, becoming today’ s

AFL­CIO. The history of the AFL was discussed in

Chapter 2

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS372.15.1/sections/ch02sec2.2#ch02sec2.2) . Recall that 38

trade unions formed under one umbrella organization that called itself the American Federation of

Labor, under the leadership of Samuel Gompers. As a cr aft union, the AFL was committed to embracing

members who were skilled tradesmen; in this way, their belief was that they could demand more money

for their workers.

The CIO, on the other hand, was not formed around c raft unions, but instead favored industrial

unionism . Rather than unionize around a particular skill, me mbers would form in a particular type of

industry, as is indicated by the organization’s name. The CIO also had a much different ideology than the

AFL. Whereas the AFL embraced the notion of capitalism, the C IO welcomed socialism and communism.

In the early 1930s three successful strikes led to the cr eation of the CIO: the Minneapolis Teamsters

Strike of 1934, the 1934 West Coast Longshoremen’s Strik e, and the 1934 Toledo Auto­Lite Strike. These

strikes showed that industrial unions could be successful a t both organizing and holding a strike. As a

result of those successes, John L. Lewis, a labor leader, organized a subgroup under the AFL that

consisted of the International Typographical Union; t he Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America; the

United Textile Workers; the International Union of M ine, Mill and Smelter Workers; the Oil Workers

International Union; and the United Hatters, Cap and Milline ry Workers International Union.

At first, the thinking was that the industrial unions c ould remain in the AFL. Although these unions

formed the initial CIO under the auspices of the AFL, th e AFL opposed the CIO. One reason for the schism

between the two organizations was that the AFL was a m uch more conservative organization (at that

time) compared to the CIO, which had liberal leanin gs that embraced communism. While two separate organizations, the CIO continued to pick up steam, be successful, attract members, and hold meaningful

strikes, leading to its independence from the AFL.

The AFL and the CIO continued as separate entities unt il Taft­Hartley was passed in 1947, requiring that

all union members sign a pledge that they were not Co mmunists. This presented a unique problem for

the CIO because many of its members were Communists. Tho se members were expelled, which resulted

in great internal strife for the organization and its le adership. Finally, new leaders took over the CIO, and

coincidentally, new leadership also headed the AFL, m aking talks of a merger possible in the 1950s. The

CIO also became more conservative and the AFL more li beral, making them more politically aligned. For

instance, the AFL started to support Democratic platfo rms. In 1955 both unions officially merged; the

AFL­CIO was formed and continues to this day, with mor e than 12.5 million members representing 56

unions (AFL­CIO, 2014). To learn more about the AFL­ CIO, visit its website at

http://www.aflcio.org

(http://www.aflcio.org) .

The Kennedy Administration, Federal Organizing, and Ci vil Rights (1960

–1963)

John F. Kennedy succeeded Eisenhower and served as pre sident from 1961 to 1963, when he was

assassinated. His presidential term is marked by numerous i mportant and far­reaching legislative

enactments. In terms of labor relations, Kennedy was re sponsible for passing Executive Order 10988 ,

which gave federal workers the right to organize and collectively bargain. This is extraordinary

legislation, because up until this time, the right to form a union and bargain was limited to the private

sector.

To ensure its success, Kennedy brought in labor experts f rom outside his administration to write the

legislation. These outsiders included Ida Klaus, a labo r lawyer highlighted in this

informative link

(http://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/ida­klaus­1905­1999.html) . She was an attorney and expert

in labor law at a time when it was very rare for wom en to be admitted to law school or practice law in

the United States. “In some classes the men would stomp t heir feet so that we could not be

heard” (Brozan, 1996, para. 2), she recalled of her days at Columbia Law School. Kennedy was successful

in implementing this executive order, which ultimate ly became part of Title VII of the Civil Service

Reform Act of 1978.

Another momentous piece of legislation Kennedy signed in 1963 was the Equal Pay Act. This was an

amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act and was the first law in the history of the United States to

address the inequality of pay based on gender. This law provides that people in the same workplace be

given equal pay for equal work (U.S. Equal Employment Opport unity Commission, n.d.).

Kennedy fought for civil rights but did not live to see passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964,

which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in

employment. The legal ramifications of this legislatio n have been profound and far reaching, affecting all

people in the United States. It is a little­known fac t that unions played an essential role both in the civ il

rights movement and in the passage of this act. To read about the role of the Teamsters in passage of the

law, as well as civil rights throughout U.S. history, click

here (http://teamster.org/content/civil­rights­and­

labor­movement­historical­overview) . In the News: Royal Tire Will Pay $182,500 for Wage Discriminati on

Based on the article by Marta Jewson in the SC Times on August 5, 2014.

Although the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963 and may seem like an o utdated law, it is still

invoked frequently when women are paid a lower salary than men for the same job. In a 2014

case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E EOC), Christine Fellman­Wolf,

Royal Tire’s human resource director, was paid $35,000 less per y ear than her predecessor and

$19,000 less than the minimum salary for the position under Royal Tire’s own compensation

system.

Trial attorney Jessica Palmer­Denig, who handled the litigat ion for the EEOC, said in a statement:

Employers should carefully examine the actual job duties of the ir employees, not just

employee or job titles, to determine if wages are really equal. If a pay disparity exists

between men and women doing the same work, the employer is well­ advised to raise

the salary of the lower­paid employees immediately. (Greenwa ld, 2014, para. 7)

Discussion Questions 1. The Equal Pay Act is limited to discrepancies on the basis of gend er. Do you agree that

workers’ salaries deserve such protection? If so, why? If not, how w ould you go about

ensuring equity in the workplace?

2. The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963, yet the case against Royal Ti re was settled more

than 50 years later. Are you surprised that such salary discrepanci es still exist? If yes,

what legislative actions would you suggest to remedy the situatio n? If no, why not?

3. After realizing that the Equal Pay Act has not solved the prob lem of gender pay inequities,

what other suggestions can you think of, in addition to legislat ive enactments, that could

make pay more equal? Courtesy CSU Archives/Everett Collection

Cesar Chavez was known for his

highly successful organizing

methods.

Watch This

A film depicting the life of Cesar Chavez and the movement, The Fight

in the Fields: Cesar Chavez and the

Farmworker’s Movement , is

available at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=HgMkX4eE3bs

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=HgMkX4eE3bs) .

3.4 The End of the 20th Century

The years from the end of the Kennedy administration in 1963 until the start of the 21st century may be

characterized as a national awakening. The plight of the disenfranchised—be they African Americans,

women, migrant farmworkers, or Latinos—were suddenly i n the forefront. The following descriptions

depict the rise of some of these workers as they fought to gain recog nition and equality.

Cesar Chavez and the National Farm Workers Associati on

No one brought home the issues of poverty, injustice, and the hopelessness of migrant workers like

Cesar Chavez in the 1960s. Born to migrant workers, he possessed an e xtraordinary ability to organize

fellow workers through local community grassroots organizing a nd a philosophy of nonviolence.

Chavez first came to national prominence when he all ied

California farmworkers with another coalition, the A gricultural

Workers Organizing Committee, to protest the horrendo us

working conditions in the grape industry. Both groups later

merged in 1966 to become the United Farm Workers Org anizing

Committee, a highly successful organization that publi cized the

plight of migrant workers to the American people. Chav ez himself

engaged in numerous fasts to gain sympathy and publicit y for his

cause, and he succeeded.

One boycott against the grape industry resulted in 14 million

Americans refusing to buy grapes. Chavez’s highly successf ul

organizing methods resulted in contracts with growers t hat gave

the workers wage raises, more safety on the job, and a medical

plan (PBS, 2004). The alliance later became a membe r of the AFL­

CIO in 1972 and changed its name to the United Farmworkers

Union . At the height of its powers, the union was also succe ssful

in getting California state legislation passed requirin g growers to

bargain (PBS, 2004).

Other Coalitions

Three coalitions founded during this same era represent ed

groups that had been long ignored: African Americans, Latinos,

and women. The Coalition of Black Trade Unionists formed

partially in reaction to dislike of AFL­CIO president George

Meany’s stand on the 1972 presidential elections, in wh ich he

supported the conservative Richard Nixon, who ultimat ely won

the presidency. This organization continues today as a

“progressive forum for black workers to bring their sp ecial issues

within unions as well as act as a bridge between organi zed labor

and the black community” (Coalition of Black Trade Unionists,

2011, para. 4). That same year, the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement was founded as the grassroots

organization of the Latino labor force. This group h as more than 1.7 million members and its own

television channel on YouTube.

Women in the workforce also felt disenfranchised and i n 1974 started their own group called the

Coalition of Labor Union Women to bring attention to issues unique to working women such as equity

in pay and family leave (Coalition of Labor Union W omen, 2014). These three groups represent the

efforts of minorities to have a voice in their condit ions of employment that they felt was lacking with

traditional labor organizations.

Wins and Losses

Despite the many successes enjoyed by labor, the latter half of the 20th century also saw setbacks. One

such event occurred in 1981 when President Ronald Rea gan fired more than 12,000 striking air traffic

controllers who were protesting their pay and long ho urs on the job. Air traffic controllers are public

(governmental) employees who are prohibited from goi ng on strike. Reagan threatened the workers

with the loss of their jobs if they did not return to work within 48 hours. When the controllers refused

Reagan, he not only fired almost all of them, but also m andated that they not be rehired. Supervisors and

nonstriking workers took over the control towers until others co uld be trained and hired.

In essence, Reagan’s actions undermined the power of th e strike because once he fired the workers, the

strike had no impact on their demands. Professor and la bor author Joseph A. McCartin believes that

Reagan’s actions set a tone for the relationship betwee n business and labor. For example, two private

companies, Phelps Dodge and International Paper, fol lowed suit and also replaced strikers rather than

entering into negotiations with workers or their unions (McCar tin, 2011).

On the other hand, a labor strike at the end of the 20th century involving members of the United Mine

Workers at the Pittston Coal Company was considered a w in for labor. Pittston had stopped contributing

to a trust established in 1950 for the women and child ren of retired coal miners, leaving them without

health care. The company also refused to pay overtime and eliminated clauses in their worker’s

contracts that ensured job security if the mines were ever sold. When the strikers walked off their jobs

in 1989, just as in the air traffic controller strike, Pittston i mmediately brought in replacement workers.

The strikers employed other methods, however, includin g sitting down in the roads and blocking coal

shipments, throwing rocks, popping tires, and other ac ts that damaged property. These actions drew

national attention to the strike. At one point, ther e were 2,000 United Mine Workers striking and 37,000

to 40,000 wildcat strikers. A sit­down strike by union members that caused the plant to cease

production for 4 days ultimately led to the reinstate ment of health and retirement benefits and was

considered a victory for labor; but at the same time, the United Mine Workers were penalized more than

$64 million for actions during the strike, and Pittsto n had to sell many of its plants to nonunion

companies, effectively going out of business and causin g the coal miners to lose their jobs (Coalminers

Strike, n.d.).

Thus, the 20th century concluded with the biggest stri des in federal legislation. The National Labor

Relations Act set up a framework of protection for l abor unions, only to be tempered by Taft­Hartley,

which outlawed closed shops, and Landrum­Griffin, whic h held unions more accountable. Public unions

were recognized but then saw much of their power dim inished when Reagan fired all of the striking air

traffic controllers and replaced them. The many strik es in the private sector led to greater negative

opinion among the American public about unions in general. Summary & Resources

Summary of Chapter Concepts

• Owners of businesses employed many methods to keep unions out of their shops, including

yellow dog contracts, in which employees agreed not to join a un ion as a condition of

employment. Another tactic used by employers was injunctions, o r orders from the court to stop

labor strikes such as the one that took place in the Great Pullman S trike.

• Antitrust legislation was applied to boycotts and strikes beca use the courts characterized them

as restraints on trade that were in violation of the Sherman Anti trust Act.

• The Clayton Act specifically excluded labor unions from bein g deemed a combination or

conspiracy, but the subsequent case Duplex Printing said that unions were not protected from

secondary boycotts.

• President Calvin Coolidge had labor and owners meet together to determine the terms of the

Railway Labor Act of 1926, legislation that ensures the peace ful settlement of disputes in the

railroad industry.

• In 1932 the Norris­LaGuardia Act gave labor many rights, incl uding the right to strike (as long as

it was peaceful), the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to receive notice before an

injunction is issued.

• The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 asked businesses a nd workers to suspend the

antitrust legislation and to set prices, as long as they were fair; t his act was deemed

unconstitutional in the 1935 Schechter Poultry case.

• The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also called the Wagn er Act, granted employees the

right to form and join a labor union, the right to collectivel y bargain, and the right to go on strike.

It was upheld in the 1937 case NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel.

• The National Labor Relations Act created the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees

elections on whether or not workers wish to be represented by a u nion. It holds hearings similar

to court cases to oversee unfair labor practices.

• The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft­Hartley) i s federal legislation that put

restrictions on labor by outlawing most types of strikes.

• Taft­Hartley was amended by the Landrum­Griffin Act of 1959 , which imposed new restrictions

on labor unions in terms of reporting their financial transacti ons, constitutions, bylaws, and

internal governance.

• The AFL and CIO merged in 1955, making this a powerful union wi th millions of members.

• Legislation passed during John F. Kennedy’s presidency grante d to all federal workers the right

to unionize and collectively bargain under Executive Order 10988. Kennedy’s administration

was also responsible for the Equal Pay Act, which granted gender­ neutral pay at work, and the

Civil Rights Act that was ultimately passed in the Lyndon B. Johnso n administration in 1964,

which prohibited workplace discrimination on the basis of rac e, color, sex, national origin, or

religion.

• Labor suffered a setback when President Ronald Reagan fired st riking air traffic controllers in

1981, but the resolution of a contract dispute by the United Min e Workers with Pittston Coal

was considered a victory for labor.

• By the end of the 20th century, labor had gained many legal pr otections but lost favor with the

public due to the many strikes in the last half of the century. Chapter 3 Review Quiz Chapter 3 Flashcards

Choose a Study Mode 

Key Terms

Adjustment Board

A tribunal established to hear grievances between railway workers and management; it replaced the

Railroad Labor Board.

agency shop

A business that hires both union and nonunion members; employees wh o are not members of the

union must still contribute union dues to cover the costs of colle ctive bargaining.

American Railway Union (ARU)

A union consisting of railway workers founded in 1893; one of the largest industrial unions of its time,

it participated in the Great Pullman Strike.

antitrust legislation

State and federal legislation intended to outlaw monopolies, trusts, and combinations.

boycott

The refusal by consumers to buy the goods of a specific manufacture r, usually due to political, ethical,

or religious beliefs about the manufacturer or its product.

Cesar Chavez

An activist and successful organizer of migrant farmworkers who f ormed the United Farmworkers

Union. Clayton Antitrust Act

A 1914 amendment to the Sherman Antitrust Act that specifically excluded labor from being deemed a

combination or conspiracy.

closed shops

Places of employment that make union membership a condition o f employment.

Coalition of Black Trade Unionists

An organization formed in the 1970s to better represent African American workers.

Coalition of Labor Union Women

A national organization formed in 1974 whose purpose is to unify union women.

combination in restraint of trade

An agreement between two or more businesses to overcome normal c ompetition by fixing prices or

diminishing competition.

Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)

An industrial labor union that eventually merged with the Ame rican Federation of Labor to create the

AFL­CIO.

Eugene Debs

One of the founders of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, o r Wobblies) and leader of the

boycott by the American Railway Union against Pullman in 1894 who went to jail for refusing to

follow a court injunction not to strike.

Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering

A 1921 court case that held that the Clayton Act did not provide statutory protection to secondary

boycotts.

Equal Pay Act

A 1963 amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act that granted e qual pay regardless of gender.

Executive Order 10988

Signed by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, this order created the right of federal employees to

organize and collectively bargain.

Federal Possession and Control Act

A federal law passed in 1916 that nationalized the railways duri ng World War I.

Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Company

A 1909 court case that upheld the finding of criminal contempt against union leaders for failing to

obey an injunction to stop printing the company’s name in a unio n magazine for alleged unfair labor

practices.

Great Pullman Strike

A strike by railway workers against the Pullman Palace Car Compa ny in 1894.

Great Strike Wave of 1946

An era that saw thousands of labor strikes taking place. industrial unionism

The formation of unions around a particular industry.

In re Debs

A court case that upheld the use of an injunction against a union in 1895 to stop a strike.

Labor Council for Latin American Advancement

An organization of Latino workers representing the needs of Latinos in labor.

Labor Management Relations Act of 1947

Better known as Taft­Hartley, a federal law passed in 1947 that amended the National Labor Relations

Act and imposed restrictions on labor organizations.

Landrum­Griffin Act

Popular name for the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosur e Act of 1959.

Loewe v. Lawlor

Also known as the Danbury Hatters case, a 1908 court case that found a union strike was a violation of

the Sherman Antitrust Act.

National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA)

A short­lived federal statute passed in 1933 that gave labor the r ight to collectively bargain and was

held unconstitutional in Schechter Poultry.

National War Labor Board

A board created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during Worl d War II to take over the major

industries in the country.

New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.

A 1938 court decision that held that the Norris­LaGuardia Act a pplies to anyone interested in a labor

dispute.

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation

A 1937 court decision that held that employees can legally orga nize.

Norris­LaGuardia Act

Federal legislation passed in 1932 that stated courts could no lon ger issue injunctions to prevent

nonviolent strikes or prevent workers from becoming members of l abor organizations and peaceably

assembling. It also outlawed yellow dog contracts and allowed sec ondary boycotts as long as they

were not violent.

George Pullman

Founder of the Pullman Palace Car Company and Pullman, Illi nois.

Pullman Palace Car Company

The company founded in 1862 by George Pullman that built luxu rious overnight rail cars.

Railway Labor Act of 1926

A federal law that provides remedies for the resolution of railroad–employee disputes arising out of

the interpretation of collective bargaining agreements. right­to­work laws

Laws passed by individual states that prohibit closed shops.

Schechter Poultry

A 1935 court case that held the National Industrial Recovery Act was unconstitutional.

secondary boycotts

Pressure put on neutral businesses by workers engaged in a primary b oycott with their employer to

try to force the employer to accede to demands.

Sherman Antitrust Act

An 1890 federal law aimed at curtailing monopolies, combinat ions, and trusts.

solidarity or political strikes

A strike for the purpose of protesting a political event happening in the country.

Transportation Act of 1920

A federal law that created the Railroad Labor Board to hear disputes between railroad owners and

workers, a forerunner to today’s arbitration process.

trusts or monopolies

When two or more businesses join together to try and curtail compe tition using activities such as

price fixing.

union shop

A place of employment that requires union membership in order t o work there.

United Farmworkers Union

An alliance of farmworkers organized to better the conditions of workers.

yellow dog contract

A contract that made it a condition of employment not to join a union.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. How did federal legislation support the establishment of unio ns and union rights? If such

legislation had not been passed, do you think that labor organiz ations would have developed?

Would they have succeeded in establishing themselves?

2. Which federal labor law do you think was the most significant i n the 20th century and why?

3. Early 20th­century decisions supported shutting down unions w ith legal processes. Discuss each

of these processes and how and why they would not be enforced today .

Case Feature

The following is an excerpt from a case heard in the Arizona courts concerning whether or not it is

constitutional to make employees contribute money to a union at their place of work, sometimes

referred to as “fair share” when those same employees also benefit from the union’s collective

bargaining agreement. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO, LOCAL 238 vs.

CITY OF PHOENIX (213 Ariz. 358, 142 P.3d 234, 180 L.R.R.M. (BNA ) 2325, 484 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 9) 2007

The American Federation of State, County, and Munic ipal Employees, AFL–CIO, Local 2384 is an

employee labor organization recognized by the City as the exclusive bargaining representative for all

City employees within a designated bargaining unit. A s such, the Union is required by law to represent

all Unit II employees without regard to union member ship in negotiating, administering, and enforcing

collective bargaining agreements. The Union’s princip al source of income is membership dues collected

from Unit II employees who are Union members.

However, the City also provides financial assistance to the Union to aid the Union in acting as exclusive

bargaining representative for all Unit II employees, including paying the full salary and benefits of three

full­time Union officials and providing the Union with anoth er 3,610 paid hours annually.

On November 30, 2001, during the compulsory “meet an d confer” process, the Union and two other

unions proposed a mandatory union contribution, or “f air share,” provision (in which all workers,

including non­union workers, would be required to co ntribute to the unions for services performed for

the workers’ benefit) in the unions’ original labor proposals sub mitted to the City.

In pertinent part, the term “meet and confer” means the performance of the mutual obligation of the

public employer through its chief administrative offi cer or his designee and the designees of the

authorized representative to meet at reasonable times, including meetings in advance of the budget

making process; and to confer in good faith with respe ct to wages, hours, and other terms and

conditions of employment or any question arising there under, and the execution of a written

memorandum of understanding embodying all agreements reache d.

The term “fair share” is frequently used in labor­man agement circles to describe situations in which a

labor organization, acting as an exclusive bargaining representative, seeks to recover from non­union

employees in the bargaining unit a pro rata share of expenses incurred by the union for negotiation,

administration, and enforcement of collective bargai ning agreements benefitting all members of the

bargaining unit without regard to union membership.

Although conceding that traditional “agency shop” ag reements were prohibited in Arizona, the unions

argued that, unlike “right to work” provisions found in some other states’ constitutions and statutes,

nothing in Arizona’s constitution or statutes specifical ly prohibited requiring the payment of a pro rata

share of a union’s expenses, or similar fees, as a term or condition of employment.

The Union argues that Arizona’s constitution and “righ t to work” laws contain less restrictive language

than that of some other “right to work” states because those states not only forbid compulsory union

membership as a condition of employment, they also spec ifically bar mandatory payment of any fee or

contribution to a union as a term or condition of em ployment. Arizona’s constitution and statutes

contain no such specific provision. Thus, the Union arg ues, such fees or contributions, if paid as a

proportionate share of the actual expenditures incurred by t he Union for services rendered for the

benefit of the collective bargaining unit (and therefore presumably in an amount less than the

equivalent of full Union dues), should be legal in Arizona.

The United States Constitution does not bar an employe r from requiring that non­union employees, as a

condition of employment, pay a “fair share” of a uni on’s cost of negotiating and administering a

collective bargaining agreement for those employees i f the fees are related to the union’s duties as

bargaining representative. Arizona law, however, specifically prohibits compulsory union membership as a condition of

employment as do Arizona’s “right to work” laws. The A rizona Attorney General has twice issued

opinions concluding that an “agency shop” agreement b etween an employer and a labor organization, in

which all non­union employees would be required to p ay to the union an amount equal to regular union

dues, would violate the Arizona constitution.

1. What do you think the court held in this case?

2. Do you agree with the union that because nothing in the Arizo na Constitution prohibited

requiring the payment, the union could demand it?

3. Do you think that unions should be allowed to require that wor kers pay union dues in support of

collective bargaining in a unionized workplace?

After you have answered the discussion questions, click her e to see the holding for this case.

ANS: As the decisions make clear, both an agency shop arrangement requiring nonunion employees to

pay the equivalent of full union dues and a fair share arrangeme nt requiring the payment of a pro rata

share of union bargaining or representation costs impinge on wor kers’ right to work. Consequently,

the fact that the union’s proposed fair share fee may be less than th e amount of full union dues is a

distinction without a difference; it is the compulsion and not t he amount that is important. Article 25

of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona’s right­to­work statu tes prohibit the union’s fair share

proposal. As a result, the proposal is not a proper subject of colle ctive bargaining between the city and

the union.

Research Projects

1. Proceed to the website http://www.nlrb.gov (http://www.nlrb.gov) . Find the tab labeled “Cases

and Decisions.” Click on that tab and go to “Board Decisions.” In the search box type in terms to

find an NLRB decision related to a subject that interested you i n this chapter. For example, you

could type in the name “Cesar Chavez” and be directed to cases in volving the labor icon. Once

you have located an NLRB decision that interests you, read the d ecision and write a brief

summary of what happened and what decision the board made. Did you agree with the decision?

Why or why not?

2. Make a chart of all the significant labor legislation passed in the 20th century. Next to the name

of each law, place a column with the year it was passed, and then an other column with a brief

description of what the law covered. If the law amended anothe r law, make an additional column

and explain why and how it amended the previous law.

3. Choose one individual who appears in this chapter and search fo r him or her online. Then write

a brief biography of that person. After you become familiar w ith that person’s background,

conduct an imaginary interview with him or her about the era i n which he or she lived, what

interested him or her about labor problems of that era, and how a nd why he or she helped make

the role of labor better. Conduct the interview as if you were t alking to the person and asking

questions to which he or she would respond with plausible answers base d on your research.